Quote of the day
posted at 10:30 pm on July 20, 2009 by Allahpundit
“[T]here is no legitimate state policy underlying Proposition 8. The occasional suggestion that marriages between people of different sexes may somehow be threatened by marriages of people of the same sex does not withstand discussion. It is difficult to the point of impossibility to envision two love-struck heterosexuals contemplating marriage to decide against it because gays and lesbians also have the right to marry; it is equally hard to envision a couple whose marriage is troubled basing the decision of whether to divorce on whether their gay neighbors are married or living in a domestic partnership. And even if depriving lesbians of the right to marry each other could force them into marrying someone they do not love but who happens to be of the opposite sex, it is impossible to see how that could be thought to be as likely to lead to a stable, loving relationship as a marriage to the person they do love.
Moreover, there is no longer any credible contention that depriving gays and lesbians of basic rights will cause them to change their sexual orientation. Even if there was, the attempt would be constitutionally defective. But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters. It is also a condition that, like race, has historically been subject to abusive and often violent discrimination. It is precisely where a minority’s basic human rights are abridged that our Constitution’s promise of due process and equal protection is most vital.”
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3
I’m out
be kind
blatantblue on July 20, 2009 at 11:57 PM
Send him on over. I’m looking divine and ready to perform.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7AX3eTt9cg&feature=related
Laura in Maryland on July 20, 2009 at 11:58 PM
End times for sure. Real “wrath of God” kinda’ stuff, ya’ know — like cats and dogs livin’ together.
My collie says:
CyberCipher on July 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM
Night BB. You did you read the response I gave to you at 11:14?
FontanaConservative on July 20, 2009 at 11:59 PM
OK… that was just mean… I actualy clicked on that link… and now I need a good BRAIN Scrub…
Romeo13 on July 21, 2009 at 12:00 AM
Well I can see it from my porch.
FontanaConservative on July 21, 2009 at 12:00 AM
I…..I think I need a shower….yeah.
FontanaConservative on July 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM
Good night, Dearie.
You got what you deserved, you peeping tom…but did you like it;)
Laura in Maryland on July 21, 2009 at 12:02 AM
He gets the go ahead, and he leaves….BB. Good night!
HornetSting on July 21, 2009 at 12:03 AM
Sexual innuendo is best done with humans.
Loxodonta on July 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM
It’s okay, collie, ‘my p*ssy brings all the boys to the yard’……and dead animals too.
HornetSting on July 21, 2009 at 12:04 AM
Okay, I haven’t read all of the comments but I see three serious problems with Bois’s statement: 1. When he says, “But, in fact, the sexual orientation of gays and lesbians is as much a God-given characteristic as the color of their skin or the sexual orientation of their straight brothers and sisters.”, that is ignorance or demonstrating lack of research at best and lying at worst because I know several men and women who were in the gay lifestyle and no longer are, haven’t been for years/decades, and many of them happily married now; 2. as much as gay activists would like to wish it were so, there is not a shred of scientific evidence that has ever proven than people are born gay (if such scientific proof existed it would be thrown in our face daily); and 3. following Bois’s logic, any number of two or people who are “in love” should have the right by law to get married. Which is what gay activisits really want: the destruction of the institution of marriage.
youngturk on July 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Ugh…that was bad. I need a zantac after ‘divine’.
HornetSting on July 21, 2009 at 12:05 AM
Which kind?
Loxodonta on July 21, 2009 at 12:06 AM
rewind.
HornetSting on July 21, 2009 at 12:07 AM
don’t tempt a G.
be kind
rewind
blatantblue on July 21, 2009 at 12:07 AM
you owe me coke
a* coke
blatantblue on July 21, 2009 at 12:08 AM
MyRenovations–
I knew I saw this somewhere
http://cgi.ebay.com/The-Male-Body-An-Owners-Manual-Good-Book_W0QQitemZ250468382643QQcmdZViewItemQQptZUS_Nonfiction_Book?hash=item3a511437b3&_trksid=p3286.c0.m14&_trkparms=65%3A12|66%3A2|39%3A1|72%3A1205|293%3A1|294%3A50
CWforFreedom on July 21, 2009 at 12:08 AM
I don’t know why AP keeps bringing the subject of same-sex marriage up for discussion and encouraging people to air their opinions when the entire movement is based on shutting down discussion and overriding the majority opinion. That’s all discussing it in terms of “rights” (which it is not) is all about.
Socratease on July 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM
First, what odd marriages are we talking about? Like, the Britney-type 55 hour marriages that are soooo important in upholding?
Like Elizabeth Taylor’s what…8 marriages? I am sure they were all sacrosanct.
As to the genetics of sexual orientation, perhaps some of you geniuses should take a year off, study epigenetics, biochemistry or endocrinology, and then get back to those of us who do instead of posting forged, fake, and downright lying bits of information you make up to sound like you know wtf you are talking about.
I still fail to see any justification for attacking gay and lesbian men and women. Doesn’t seem to make sense.
JP1986UM on July 21, 2009 at 12:09 AM
OK.
What are you implying about Allahpundit and his dog?
Loxodonta on July 21, 2009 at 12:10 AM
I’ll send you one…..so, why the heck don’t you have a farm on FB?????
HornetSting on July 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
Good night all, and apologies all ’round (sort of).
Laura in Maryland on July 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
My collie says:
Enough collie. Let’s just say that I know how that passenger from Arizona felt today — you know, the one that got stung by a scorpion on a commercial airline flight. Trapped…with no way out.
CyberCipher on July 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
There you go, SDnocoen. The problem is as I have stated: homosexuals simply do not like the choices available to them, but they do have the exact same choice that heterosexuals have. Thus, the rights deficiency is NOT located in a gay/straight dichotomy, even though that may be where it is most strongly felt. The deficiency is with the male/female dichotomy.
Now, your next question, which you don’t ask but were too busy laughing at the idea of a straight man marrying another straight man to think about, is, why does this matter. The answer is simple: because the male/female dichotomy does not seek to award different rights to different behaviors. It does not set the government up as the arbitrator of what behavior must be seen as socially acceptable, or which groups must be privileged over others. As you see with many posts on this forum, people do not have a problem with homosexual marriage because they have something against homosexuals. They have a problem with it because, due to how it is framed and how it is being pursued, it is part of a more ambitious effort to make the gay lifestyle unimpeachable through government enforcement.
That is why I do not support gay rights, but I do support equality between the sexes. One is tyranny, the other is liberty.
JSchuler on July 21, 2009 at 12:12 AM
I’ll make it simple for you. The parts don’t fit. If they don’t fit, you must quit.
HornetSting on July 21, 2009 at 12:13 AM
You won’t be sorry in the morning
:D
blatantblue on July 21, 2009 at 12:14 AM
First!
Blake on July 21, 2009 at 10:01 AM
The difference is that homosexuality is a behavior that can be foreborne and race is a trait that cannot (unless you are Michael Jackson). We as a society can choose which behaviors we approve of and which ones we don’t. A person who is born black has no choice about the color of his skin. A person who is “born” gay has plenty of choice about whether to engage in anal sex. That’s the difference and it’s plenty simple to understand. Just like an alcoholic has a choice about picking up a glass, a gay guy has a choice about whether to succumb to his urges I have no doubt that someone who is gay feels like he has no control over his emotions or his preferences, but there are lots of murderers/drug addicts/ pedophiles/other criminals who would tell you the same thing: being a murderer/drug addict/pedophile/other criminal is just a part of who they are and asking them not to act out in those ways is akin to asking them to deny themselves. OMIGOD SOME POSTER ON HOT AIR COMPARED HOMOSEXUALITY TO MURDERERS AND PEDOPHILES! Yes I did. We as a society have the privilege and the duty of deciding what behaviors we approve of and what behaviors we don’t. Gay people used to get thrown in jail, now they’re free to be gay, but the voters in California declined to grant their behavior an additional level of approval. There is nothing wrong with that and it’s different than discriminating against someone on the basis of his race. Very different. The real issue here now is the other side refusing to accept that and taking it over the heads of the voters themselves. Don’t push your luck – do you really think that a FEDERAL constitutional amendment wouldn’t pass 3/4th’s of the states if it ever managed to get out of Congress?
jr.ewing.78 on July 21, 2009 at 10:07 AM
The difference is that homosexuality is a behavior that can be foreborne and race is a trait that cannot (unless you are Michael Jackson). We as a society can choose which behaviors we approve of and which ones we don’t. A person who is born black has no choice about the color of his skin. A person who is “born” gay has plenty of choice about whether to engage in anal sex. That’s the difference and it’s plenty simple to understand.
Just like an alcoholic has a choice about picking up a glass, a gay guy has a choice about whether to succumb to his urges I have no doubt that someone who is gay feels like he has no control over his emotions or his preferences, but there are lots of murderers/drug addicts/ pedophiles/other criminals who would tell you the same thing: being a murderer/drug addict/pedophile/other criminal is just a part of who they are and asking them not to act out in those ways is akin to asking them to deny themselves.
OMIGOD SOME POSTER ON HOT AIR COMPARED HOMOSEXUALITY TO MURDERERS AND PEDOPHILES!
Yes I did.
We as a society have the privilege and the duty of deciding what behaviors we approve of and what behaviors we don’t. Gay people used to get thrown in jail, now they’re free to be gay, but the voters in California declined to grant their behavior an additional level of approval.
There is nothing wrong with that and it’s different than discriminating against someone on the basis of his race. Very different.
The real issue here now is the other side refusing to accept that and taking it over the heads of the voters themselves.
Don’t push your luck – do you really think that a FEDERAL constitutional amendment wouldn’t pass 3/4th’s of the states if it ever managed to get out of Congress?
jr.ewing.78 on July 21, 2009 at 10:09 AM
That’s true, but if you destroy the meaning of marriage by making it legal in any case, then the lovestruck heterosexuals may not contemplate marriage in the first place and instead choose to just live together while it’s convenient. With no binding contract between them, the family unit falls apart.
Kafir on July 21, 2009 at 10:12 AM
Some people are allergic to peanuts. Don’t peanut subsidies violate their constitutional rights?
JohnJ on July 21, 2009 at 10:19 AM
Well, she did manage to knock down the Barackopolis!
Steve Z on July 21, 2009 at 10:23 AM
Why can’t these egotistical lawyers allow the system to work? The people are speaking on this issue using the appropriate democratic process. I personally don’t give a darn what 2 lawyers think about this.
echosyst on July 21, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Most of the studies have indicated it is a severe neurotic behavior. It’s just not allowed to be said anymore.
peacenprosperity on July 21, 2009 at 10:41 AM
Straight marriage, gay marriage, polygamy…it’s all good.
LimeyGeek on July 21, 2009 at 10:50 AM
So if all sexual drives and inclinations are God given then does that include pedophelia, bestiality and other inclinations that are still taboo in our culture? If not, then what is the criteria to distinguish between inclinations that are God given and those that are not?? Those that keep trying to make the “God made me gay” argument can never offer any clear defintion for distinguishing between normal God-given sexual desires and perversions. The definition seems to be whatever the predominant culture still considers “icky” is not God given, but everything else is. Now that homosexuality is less taboo in our culture, then God must not only be ok with it he must be the author of it. The problem here is that sexual mores change across different cultures but God does not change.
If God makes people gay then he is very cruel. You’re basically saying he gives people the desire for sexual union with partners of the same sex, but has withheld from them any possibility of enjoying the most natural biological function of that activity which is to procreate. A gay couple can never fulfill the natural human desire to reproduce. This is not the same thing as infertility in a hetersexual couple since infertility by definition is a state of dysfunction (ie something has gone wrong which can frequently but not always be corrected with medical intervention). With a gay couple you have infertility by design…there’s nothing to “fix” since there is no sexual complementarity in the first place.
frank63 on July 21, 2009 at 11:17 AM
How about electric shock therapy for queers, and all those who have written on this blog supporting them? Just a thought.
jarhead0311 on July 21, 2009 at 11:41 AM
It wasn’t illegal to be black, people just had to avoid acting on their attraction across racial lines. Presumably people were capable of finding love within their own race.
The majority of voters in several states believed that race-mixing had broader societal consequences than just what two amorous individuals did behind closed doors.
dedalus on July 21, 2009 at 11:45 AM
Libertarian types like this don’t get it: “Gay marriage” laws infringe on the freedom of conscience of everyone in society who is forced by the state to recognize the legitimacy of and render support to something which, frankly, simply doesn’t exist. There is no such thing as a “marriage” between two women and two men. The state can decree that an apple is an orange, but at that point the state itself becomes a farce. This is not a religious argument but an anthropological one, a matter of reason.
evergreen on July 21, 2009 at 11:50 AM
Oh, and these are going to tell us that homosexuality is an immutable characteristic like one’s racial makeup? I don’t think so.
Besides, we all know that no honest science can be done on this subject, just as no honest political debate can occur. That is the point of much of the homosexual advocacy, after all: Shutting down debate. You demonstrate such a tactic by calling a dissenting view an “attack.”
evergreen on July 21, 2009 at 11:55 AM
What if there is scientific evidence that it is genetic? There was a study some time ago that seemed to link a gene to violence. Do those people get a pass for being violent? Does that mean that God wanted them to be violent? Regardless of the science we have to determine it’s morality, and it’s not simply going to be homosexuality, before it’s over, genetics is going to open up a very large can of worms.
DFCtomm on July 21, 2009 at 12:08 PM
I have two female family members who are gay. One of them is in a committed domestic relationship. (The other was, but the relationship ended.) I love them both deeply. I’ve known and worked with a fair number of gay men and women. I shared a house with several Christian men who had decided to leave the gay lifestyle. (Two of them later married.)
That’s to say that I’m not the slightest bit homophobic or anti-gay.
And while a number of the gay people I’ve known have said that “they always knew they were gay”, I have never known a gay person who had a strong, stable, loving relationship with their father. Not one. There are studies that indicate the same thing – a strong correlation between disfunctional relations with the father and homosexual feelings in the child.
In the urban black community (a culture noted for its absent fathers) there appears to be an upsurge in men “on the down low” though they don’t identify themselves as gay. This is being blamed for an increase in HIV in that community.
So while there may be some “nature” component to a homosexual orientation (as there is in alcoholism, for example), there’s also a strong “nurture” component. Further, there’s no question that the *behavior* is a personal choice.
skydaddy on July 21, 2009 at 12:15 PM
While we’re at it…let’s throw in buggery and felching…b/c all sexual fetishes are God-ordained you know…
/s
bluelightbrigade on July 21, 2009 at 12:36 PM
Of course there is no scientific evidence, whatsoever, which proves that abnormal sexual appetites (behaviors), which include same-gender sex acts, child molestation, rape, shoe fetishes etc. are genetic. NONE.
For the sake of argument, if a gene were isolated, two things would likely take place. The first would be that homosexuality would be reclassified, as a birth anomaly and the second might be that every pregnant woman, in the United States (and possibly the world) would request a test to find out if her preborn child has the gene, and if so would there would be a stampede to local abortion clinics.
sinsing on July 21, 2009 at 12:47 PM
The hidden reasons for gay marriage are two fold, first to hold jewish and christian preachers preaching the Word of God, guilty of hate crimes against gays,lesbians, etc.(and although muslims preach the same libtards would never dare accuse them of hate crimes because some ‘haters’ are more equal than others). Second to indoctrinate kindergartners into homosexually positive behaviors and thought patters. We’ve already seen, without gay marriage, that six year olds were forced to participate into mock same sex marriages. We will then also see more pressure by liberals into teaching gay sex to K-8, as well. This is where the undermining of straight marriage occurs. The fact is that straight marriage, despite everything that liberals/ socialists/democraps have done their best to undermine it, remains the best organization for socializing and maturing children. At its best gay parentage is no better than single parenthood for child development. Why we would inflict such pain and dysfunction on children is a mystery.
eaglewingz08 on July 21, 2009 at 12:50 PM
AP may vote Republican, but he is definitely NOT a conservative… especially not on social issues. He also acts a bit immature in playing the part of host troll in bashing conservatives just to drive up site traffic. (Which in my opinion is a bit unethical.)
Ed is usually a strong conservative, but has had a “strange new perfume” lingering in a few articles. We know he isn’t a RINO, but wonder if he’s had a fling with them once or twice. (Us conservatives tend to be a suspicious lot, usually for good reason.)
dominigan on July 21, 2009 at 1:19 PM
Not sure where you get this…
God’s Word teaches that man lives in a fallen state of sin. Deviant sexuality is just one part of that.
dominigan on July 21, 2009 at 1:23 PM
It’s really not a mystery. For two generations now we’ve been a society drenched in hedonism and radical egalitarianism. It’s effected every aspect of our legal, political and popular culture. If you asked the average person 100 or even 50 years ago what the main purpose of marriage was they would tell you that it was to provide the foundational unit for family which was the ideal environment for the nurture and development of children and hence the future. If you ask that same question today the answer would be all about us as individuals finding our own happiness and having our lifestyle choices validated by our fellow man. It’s no coincidence that a skyrocketing divorce rate took place over the same period of time that “alternate” lifestyles became acceptable. Marriage used to be about what was best for our children, for the future and for the betterment of our society in general. Now it’s all about us, our happiness and our rights. How children are affected is secondary.
frank63 on July 21, 2009 at 1:29 PM
Excellent comment. There is also another issue, which must be addressed. Homosexual marriage is being forced on the American people, in spite of their clear objections, along with homosexual adoption, foster care and homosexual indoctrination programs in our public schools.
Homosexuals are being used as pawns/smoke screens, in a far more sinister picture. It is necessary to destroy the Traditional Family, and its value system while removing God from our country, at the same time, in order to force Communism/Marxism, on the American people. The land mass of our country does not make us great. What has made us great it the collective philosophy Americans have shared since its inception. Americans have been the country of God, family and work ethic.
You may find this COMMUNIST MANIFESTO MATERIAL interesting:
Chapter 1:
http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm
Chapter 2: http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch02.htm
Of course Obama’s very close friend, the terrorist/Marxist William Ayers wrote similar materials, in his own book on the subject “Prairie Fire”:
William Ayers’ forgotten communist manifesto: Prairie Fire
http://zombietime.com/prairie_fire/
Obama himself follows the philosophy of Marxist Saul Alinsky, as does Hillary Clinton who dedicated her Wellesley College thesis to him:
Saul Alinsky’s son: “Obama learned his lesson well”
http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/4784
Copy of Hillary Clinton’s Wellesley thesis, “THERE IS ONLY THE FIGHT…” An Analysis of the Alinsky Model:
http://www.gopublius.com/HCT/HillaryClintonThesis.html
This is just the tip of the iceberg. We are being distracted by the homosexual issue and what it actually represents.
sinsing on July 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
Yet, paradoxically, the amount of time, attention, and money spent on each child has increased consistently during the past 40 years. We can have the impression that today’s children are both pampered and ignored.
dedalus on July 21, 2009 at 1:38 PM
The other odd marriages I’m talking about are the other “types of marriages” barred by marriage barriers, such as Polygamy, Bestiality, Incest, etc.
Elizabeth Taylor’s multiple wedding’s is a result of a society losing it’s morals and how it sees marriage as not important. What we see in divorce is the same narcissism you’ve seen in the 60′s and 70′s where the thinking there was “It’s all about what you want.” etc. Well, people brought that into marriage. Now instead of asking themselves “What can I do for my wife/husband” it’s become “Well, what benifits do I get out of from this marriage”.
Oh and this is not an attack on the individual like you claim I’m doing. It’s more of an attack against the homosexual movement itself.
FontanaConservative on July 21, 2009 at 1:39 PM
Excellent comment. That’s EXACTLY what gay marriage is really about: getting a big government stick of legitimacy to bludgeon the rest of us into accepting that lifestyle as normal.
Me personally, it’s none of my business what two (or more) consenting adults do behind closed doors – gay sex, drugs, S&M, whatever. That doesn’t mean I think it’s right or that I and my fellow citizens approve of it. Homosexuality is unnatural and wrong, but it’s not my place to tell you not to do it in private.
Gays can already get all of the material and practical benefits of marriage (hospital visits, inheritance, et al) through existing contract law. The point of calling it MARRIAGE is to get the state to consider it on par with hetero relationships and then force the rest of society into changing its morals.
I’d call it a “backdoor” but that pun has likely already been used.
jr.ewing.78 on July 21, 2009 at 2:41 PM
Gay sex acts are NOT genetic.
Boie and Olson need to spend sometime checking out the large wealth of research here
http://www.narth.com
JaqobJackson on July 21, 2009 at 2:48 PM
So far genetic attributes haven’t been a requirement for the state courts where they’ve ruled on gay marriage. In discrimination cases, more generally, religion or national origin can qualify someone for protection without genetic questions coming into play.
dedalus on July 21, 2009 at 3:04 PM
OK, let me ask the heterosexual men here a question. Do you find men sexually attractive? I’m limiting this question to this group for a reason. We, as heterosexual men, have to have a specific type of reaction to enjoy intercourse. Think about it.
Without this reaction, intercourse with a female or anyone else is virtually impossible. A movie I once saw equates it with trying to stuff a donut into a slot machine. These are simply the facts.
Now, with this in mind, I will readily admit that I have never had that reaction in response to a man. I’ll even admit that I am unable to get that reaction even with a morbidly obese woman. No offense is intended, I am simply not attracted to men or morbidly obese women. I cannot have that reaction, and therefore cannot have that intercourse.
This would seem to belie the idea that genetics are not involved. There has to be some kind of desire, a reaction in the brain, before there is the other reaction (erection). I don’t condone the idea of gay marriage, but I can’t deny my own experiences that show rather starkly that I cannot be gay.
In the same way, I cannot imagine having that reaction to another man, and therefore I can only assume that a gay man, who is capable of such a reaction, is simply wired differently than I am. I cannot imagine having that reaction to a man, no matter how pretty he may be, just like I cannot imagine NOT having that reaction in the presence of an attractive woman who clearly wants me to have it.
Do you see what I’m getting at? You may be able to add a certain element of environment to the discussion, and some have above, but there is no way you can discount the genetics. And if men can have this different wiring, so can women. And if all this is true (and no one can deny my own experience), then perhaps you other heterosexual men should consider that gay men are wired differently in such a way that it can’t yet be detected. I personally find it undeniable.
runawayyyy on July 21, 2009 at 4:21 PM
Runawayyyy,
I also can’t understand how any man could have that “reaction” to a child. But that’s a reality for a some men as taboo as that may be. So is that hard wiring also? If it is, then we have to concede that hard wiring does not necessarily make something good, moral or acceptable. If the answer is no, then by what grounds can we say that one deviancy, at least as traditionally understood, is hard wired but another is not.
Personally I think that while a certain genetical makeup can perhaps make someone more suceptible to “alternate” sexual attractions, I think ultimately it’s decided by childhood psychological forces that later can be reinforced by choices. If it were mostly genetic then all identical twins would share the same sexual orientation but that is not the case.
frank63 on July 21, 2009 at 4:47 PM
Please provide a link to your alleged set of scientific studies.
Otherwise, simply admit you are lying thru your teeth and have no proof whatsoever. It’s a conservative trait to admit when we are wrong, unlike Libs who lie and then persist in it because it interferes with their world view.
JP1986UM on July 21, 2009 at 6:19 PM
I’m calling bullshit. The gay crowd has always asserted that being gay is an attribute you’re born with. I’m not buying it. At best, it’s a predisposition toward a particular behavior, similar to the “alcoholism gene” they discovered previously, but unlike your race, being gay is a behavioral choice. You cannot choose to not be Black, Caucasian, or Asian, but you can choose to avoid gay behavior even if you’re born predisposed to it (which nobody has ever proven in reliable study), similar to how you can choose to avoid binge drinking even if you’re predisposed toward alcoholism.
PersonalLiberty on July 21, 2009 at 8:16 PM
How about Frued, Bergler, Janov, Bieber, Saghir and Robins,and try this.
“It is my contention in this paper that this threat of revolutionary change in our sexual mores and customs has been ushered in by a singular act of considerable consequence: the removal of homosexuality from the category of aberrancy by the American Psychiatric Association (December 1973). It is furthermore a fateful consequence of our disregard for psychoanalytic knowledge of human sexual behavior.”
I’d be more then happy to review any data you want to refer me to of the photographs, cat scans, mri or x-rays of the “gay” gland or the diagram of the gay genome.
Oh, there isn’t any?
peacenprosperity on July 21, 2009 at 10:12 PM
And for curiousity sake, what is the source of your anger? Do you practice homosexual behavior or did your parenting skills cause someone else to?
peacenprosperity on July 21, 2009 at 10:15 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3